Judgment Rajiv Sharma, Judge: 1. The main grievance of the petitioner is that same set of Pujaries are permitted to perform pooja in two separate temples, namely, Mata Brajeshwari Devi, Tehsil and District Kangra and Shiv temple Baijnath, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. 2. Petitioner is one of the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 06 of 2009 filed in the Court of District Judge, Knangra at Dharamshala (H.P.). In the Civil Suit, the plaintiffs have prayed for the following relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that “A” a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs beign legitimate descendants and successors of their forefathers and being members of Bhojki/Panda community and being hereditary Pujaris are legally entitled to get the pooja performed as Baridars’ and work as ‘Pandas’/Tirath Purohits of their pilgrims coming from various parts of India and abroad for pooja purposes in Brijeshwari Devi Temple at Kangra and are also entitled to get their lawful and due share of money from defendants 1 to 3 with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 not to ignore the rights of the plaintiffs for getting the pooja performed of their pilgrims and from getting their lawful & due share of money and further restraining the defendants from distributing the money to the other ‘Bhojkis’/’Pandas’/’Hereditary Pujari’ to the exclusion of the plaintiffs together with mandatory injunction direction the defendants 1 to 3 to include the names of plaintiffs in the list of ‘Pandas’ being maintained by the defendants 1 to 3 and also delete the name of Panchayati, defendant No. 4 from the said list which name is, infact, bogus one as there is no person with this name in the ‘Pandas’ community/ ‘Bhojki’ community and “B” a decree for recovery of Rs. 11,00,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs) alongwith 9% interest per annum till date of realization of entire decretal amount or any other amount as assessed by this Court being legal share of the plaintiffs which has not been paid to the plaintiffs by the defendants 1 to 3 be passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants and same be passed with….” 3. The petitioner has concealed this fact from this Court. A litigant cannot choose only convenient facts. All the material facts are required to be disclosed in the petition for full and final adjudication of the matter. The petitioner has concealed this fact from this Court. A litigant cannot choose only convenient facts. All the material facts are required to be disclosed in the petition for full and final adjudication of the matter. The petitioner has not placed any tangible evidence on record under what law/practice the Pujaries can not perform poojas at two temples, i.e., Mata Brajeshwari Devi temple, Tehsil and District Kangra and Shiv temple Baijnath, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. There is no legal injury caused to the petitioner. 4. The scope of judicial review, the manner in which the religious ceremonies including pooja etc are to be performed, is limited. The Courts can intervene only when there is violation of fundamental rights and other legal provisions. 5. According to the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 4, the hereditary pujaries have their own Priest/Pada/Pujari Sabha, which determines the entitlement of pooja archana to a particular family of their community in accordance with their traditions and customs and its share in income to be distributed by the temple trust. Specific days of pooja archana by a particular family are specified. The share of income @40% was paid by the temple trust to the family/pujari as per the calendar of turn finalized by the Panda Sabha. These temples are being managed and administered as per the norms laid down in Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984. 6. There are about 57 share holders in Shri Barjeshwari Devi temple and their turn as pujari of the temple has been decided by he Panda Sabha on rotation basis. A particular family of a hereditary pujari/ share holder gets opportunity to avail his/her turn as pujari and share holder about 6 to 7 times in a year in Mata Brajeshwari Devi temple. Now, as far as Shri Shiv temple Baijnath is concerned, the days of performing pooja and availing share in income of the temple have been divided in two parts. Shri Jayoti Parkash Sharma performs pooja for six months and for rest of the six months, the pooja is performed by 21 families including the respondents No. 5 to 10. The share holder/pujari gets the opportunity of performing pooja and share in the income of the temple about 8 to 9 times in a year. 7. Shri Jayoti Parkash Sharma performs pooja for six months and for rest of the six months, the pooja is performed by 21 families including the respondents No. 5 to 10. The share holder/pujari gets the opportunity of performing pooja and share in the income of the temple about 8 to 9 times in a year. 7. The averment made by the petitioner that the temples have been taken over is not correct. There is no provision under the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 for taking over the temple. These are only managed by the authorities constituted under the Act. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove will have no nearing on the Civil Suit pending before the learned District Judge, Kangra. All the interim orders are vacated. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.